Have you ever asked yourself how we even know
about the life of Muhammad? Where did the story
of Islam's prophet actually come from? Most people
assume we simply have the Quran. But the earliest
and most detailed records about Muhammad's life
come from what are called the biographies, or
the seerah. The first major biography of Muhammad
was written by a man named Ibn Ishaq. He was
born in the year 85 after the Hijra. That means
about 76 years after Muhammad's death. Ibn Ishaq
died in the year 151 after the Hijrah. His work
has reached us through two main sources. One
is the biography written by Ibn Hisham. The other
is the great history compiled by Al -Tabari.
Ibn Hisham took Ibn Ishaq's original biography
and edited it heavily. He removed parts he did
not like or thought were inappropriate. He admitted
that he left out material that had no direct
mention of the prophet. He also avoided including
poems that seemed unreliable. He even removed
things he considered morally disgraceful or that
might upset certain listeners. In other words,
Ibn Hisham let his personal view of what a prophet
should or should not be shape what he decided
to keep. He also cared about how people might
react emotionally to the more troubling stories.
Thankfully, al -Tabari preserved many of the
missing sections that Ibn Hisham deleted. Later,
the scholar Alfred Guillaume compared both works
and reconstructed what he could of Ibn Ishaq's
original writings. Now this pattern has continued
into modern times. Many Muslim biographers today
follow the same approach as Ibn Hisham. They
often remove anything they think sounds unflattering
or disagreeable to the image of a prophet. A
clear example comes from the popular Egyptian
author Muhammad Hussein Haikal. His book about
the prophet, called The Life of Muhammad, is
one of the best -known modern biographies. In
the preface to the second edition, Haikal explained
why he rejected the famous account of the Satanic
verses, even though the story is found in the
earliest sources. Haikal said that he refused
to accept it. because it denied what he believed
to be the infallibility of prophets in delivering
divine messages. He also argued that the story
failed to meet what he called modern scientific
standards. But notice the reasoning here. Haikal
starts from the assumption that a prophet cannot
make a mistake when conveying revelation. He
then uses that presupposition to reject a story
that challenges it. Yet the problem is that his
assumption directly contradicts the Quran itself.
According to early Islamic tradition, the Quran
in Surah 22 verse 52 was given to Muhammad right
after the incident of the satanic verses to comfort
him. In the translation by Al -Hilali and Khan,
it says that no messenger or prophet was ever
sent before Muhammad without Satan trying to
inject something false during the recitation.
But God removes what Satan throws in and then
restores his revelation. That verse fits perfectly
with the historical story of the Satanic verses
described by Ibn Ishaq and the early historians.
It seems to confirm that something like that
really happened. If someone wants to deny this
tradition, then they would need to provide an
older and stronger source that explains this
verse differently. Simply dismissing the story
without presenting better historical evidence
is not serious scholarship. It is a rejection
of the very historical record that defines early
Islam. Haikal's approach may look like it protects
Muhammad's reputation, yet it does so at the
cost of rejecting both the earliest biographies
and the teaching of the Quran itself. So here
is the bigger question. If Surah 22 verse 52
tells us that even prophets can be deceived temporarily
by Satan, but that God corrects them afterward,
how can someone still hold to the modern assumption
that prophets are infallible in receiving revelation?
Haikal never explained where his belief came
from or why it should override what the Quran
and the earliest historians actually say. In
doing so, he replaced the historical religion
of Islam with a more modern and idealized version
that ignores its own sources. When we look honestly
at the biographies, we see that early Islamic
history is far more complex and human than many
people realize. Ibn Ishaq wrote close enough
to Muhammad's lifetime to preserve valuable details.
Ibn Hisham and Haikal each trimmed away what
they thought was uncomfortable. And the Quran
itself provides internal clues that match those
early reports. All this matters because to understand
Islam as it really began, we must read the Sirah
critically. Not through the lens of modern assumptions,
but through the evidence that the earliest sources
actually provide.